Scott I admire your passion, I appreciate when good people get fired up about things they care about. But I must say some of your references are apples to oranges. Sunset falls is unique and is nothing like the elwha, or any dam on the Columbia or Snake river. Not comparable, so jumbling in the sunset falls proposal with them is an unfair comparison. Obviously dams are not good we can all agree. Some are worse than others and some could be catastrophic. Which one is sunset falls?

I'm pretty neutral on the issue. I can see two viewpoints and both carry merit. And as much as I respect the savetheskyriver camp I don't feel like I can base an entire opinion on what information I glean from their campaign.

The irony from where I'm standing is so many are quick to pull the plug on this dam proposal for fear it might interrupt the Eco system, while surely big changes are on the horizon for the fish of the SF should no improvements to the fish trap be made (ie... Homeless fish and an empty river). You can't have much more of an impact than that. Whether you or I deem it "natural" is not of any consequence. Lost habitat for 80,000 naturally reproducing adult salmon and steelhead is a dramatic change to the basin.

Scott I admire your passion, I appreciate when good people get fired up about things they care about. But I must say some of your references are apples to oranges. Sunset falls is unique and is nothing like the elwha, or any dam on the Columbia or Snake river. Not comparable, so jumbling in the sunset falls proposal with them is an unfair comparison. Obviously dams are not good we can all agree. Some are worse than others and some could be catastrophic. Which one is sunset falls?

I'm pretty neutral on the issue. I can see two viewpoints and both carry merit. And as much as I respect the savetheskyriver camp I don't feel like I can base an entire opinion on what information I glean from their campaign.

The irony from where I'm standing is so many are quick to pull the plug on this dam proposal for fear it might interrupt the Eco system, while surely big changes are on the horizon for the fish of the SF should no improvements to the fish trap be made (ie... Homeless fish and an empty river). You can't have much more of an impact than that. Whether you or I deem it "natural" is not of any consequence. Lost habitat for 80,000 naturally reproducing adult salmon and steelhead is a dramatic change to the basin.

Click to expand...

Hi Sean,

I agree the Elwha and Skykomish are very different issues, I attempted (and obviously failed) at trying to make this point .

The Elwha had two dams that prevented anadromous fish from getting upstream. I've hiked and fished the upper reaches of the Elwha and the spawning habitat is amazing. Looking at a map there are tens of miles of river that are now accessible to fish.

Putting the fish passage issue aside for the Skykomish discussion, the economics of the project appear to be REALLY bad. I hear you what you are saying about the SaveTheSkyCampaign. Just like SnoPUD they are coming at this with a strong POV and are going to present arguments that favor their position. It is good to be skeptical of everything they are saying, do your own research and draw you own conclusions. Going beyond the two main sides there are a lot of other groups that have weighed in on this project. I trust organizations like Trout Unlimited and American Rivers and when you take into account the position of all the groups opposed to this project I am lead to believe this is a bad deal for the river. IMO the poor economics are not worth the changes that will happen to the river. Again I am not anti dam just very against this particular project.

You can count on one thing. The fish ladder will be the last thing they probably do and if they are over budget it will be the first thing cut. I have not read up enough to make a educated decision on this project. Guess I better start reading

If SnoPUD gets a license to build the Sunset Falls hydro project, renovation of the fish passage will be a condition in the license. They won't have any choice about cutting it out. Please do start reading.

I am not anti-dam but I am anti stupid & wasteful government spending. Yes we need power and there is no such thing as "green energy" unless you're a plant who can photosynthesize. All energy production has trade offs; dams are bad for anadromous fish; wind factories use up massive amounts of land affecting animals like elk and bats; coal burning produces sulfurdioxide; and nuclear based production produces radioactive waste. I accept that we need power sources and agree we will need to increase capacity over time but we need to be smart about it and I don't see this as a smart project.

The problem I have with this particular project is the economics are completely upside down (see below) and because of this I don't see how we can justify building it (and messing up what is currently a wild and scenic river in the process). By the accounts from SnoPUD they are spending 175 million dollars to benefit a base of about 11,000 households. This new dam would increase SnoPUDs power capacity by about 1%. An independent study (albeit it could be somewhat biased because the opposition commissioned it) estimates the power generated will come at a cost 5 times higher than what could be bought on the open market. It also estimate that the break even point for paying off the cost of construction with added capacity is 100 years. A 1% gain in capacity could be made up by improving existing power generation (like Snoqualmie Falls) and distribution sources (improve the grid) & conservation alone (switching to LED lighting).

The reason the Elwha dams were torn down is because they a)generated minimal hydro power and b) blocked a river that had supported anadromus fish runs for tens of thousands of years before impoundment. Tearing the Elwha dams down opened up some 30+miles of spawning habitat that was previously blocked.

Arguing that the dams will make the river fish better or is the only way to fund the fish ladder are utter BS. Why not just argue for more fish hatcheries on the lower riverif the objective is to catch more fish? That fish ladder is an unnatural passage that shouldn't be there. All it did was trade one fishery (native bull trout, cutthroat, and rainbows) for an artificial fishery (even if they are wild fish). There is a reason Trout Unlimited, Save our Salmon, Native Fish Society, almost every tribe in the state, NOAA Fisheries, and dozens of other pro-fishery stake holders are opposed to this project.

If god wanted anadromous fish in the upper Sky he shouldn't have put in the waterfalls.

I'll admit I've enjoyed catching summer run steelhead on southfork but it is an unatural fishery based on 1950's fisheries management practices. The 50,000 pinks belong in the lower river. We have no idea how trucking these fish beyond their natural spawning grounds has impacted the lower river species or resident upper river native fish (cutts, rainbows, bulls, whitefish etc). Maybe we just need to let the fish ladder die and stop the trucking program.

Click to expand...

Who cares?

The Steelhead you were catching are most likely hatchery transplants that began to spawn naturally above the falls.

The adjustable diversion weir will and water diversion will only have positive impacts on your life and that of your children in the form of greater electricity production.

The weir has the same effect on the river as the chutes, falls and pools that already exist along that stretch of River.

You really have no place to comment on what you believe the negative impacts will be as they will have absolutely ZERO effect on your own personal life.

Click to expand...

It is my belief that the economics of this project are poor and the project should not be approved. It has a high total project cost that will produce electricity far above open market electrical pricing for a relatively small number of households.

I would rather see the money spent to buy electricity on the open market with long term negotiated contracts, invested to improve existing hydro projects with increased capacity/generation (like what is being done at Snoqualmie falls), and electricity conservation efforts.

It is my belief that the economics of this project are poor and the project should not be approved. It has a high total project cost that will produce electricity far above open market electrical pricing for a relatively small number of households.

I would rather see the money spent to buy electricity on the open market with long term negotiated contracts, invested to improve existing hydro projects with increased capacity/generation (like what is being done at Snoqualmie falls), and electricity conservation efforts.

I have every right to comment, end of story.

Click to expand...

The falls project is low-hanging fruit. It's cheaper to do it now than it will be to do it in the future.

And yes you're right, you do have every right to comment, however it makes little sense since it will have absolutely zero impact on your life.